"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Breast Imaging

Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations

Published Online:Oct 1 2002https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667

Abstract

PURPOSE: To (a) determine the performance of screening mammography, ultrasonography (US), and physical examination (PE); (b) analyze the influence of age, hormonal status, and breast density; (c) compare the size and stage of tumors detected with each modality; and (d) determine which modality or combination of modalities optimize cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11,130 asymptomatic women underwent 27,825 screening sessions, (mammography and subsequent PE). Women with dense breasts subsequently underwent screening US. Abnormalities were deemed positive if biopsy findings revealed malignancy and negative if findings from biopsy or all screening examinations were negative.

RESULTS: In 221 women, 246 cancers were found. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy of mammography were 77.6%, 98.8%, 99.8%, 35.8%, and 98.6%, respectively; those of PE, 27.6%, 99.4%, 99.4%, 28.9%, and 98.8%, respectively; and those of US, 75.3%, 96.8%, 99.7%, 20.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. Screening breast US increased the number of women diagnosed with nonpalpable invasive cancers by 42% (30 of 71). Mammographic sensitivity declined significantly with increasing breast density (P < .01) (48% for the densest breasts) and in younger women with dense breasts (P = .02); the effects were independent. Mammography and US together had significantly higher sensitivity (97%) than did mammography and PE together (74%) (P < .001). Tumors detected at mammography and/or US were significantly smaller (P = .01) and of lower stage (P = .01) than those detected at PE.

CONCLUSION: Mammographic sensitivity for breast cancer declines significantly with increasing breast density and is independently higher in older women with dense breasts. Addition of screening US significantly increases detection of small cancers and depicts significantly more cancers and at smaller size and lower stage than does PE, which detects independently extremely few cancers. Hormonal status has no significant effect on effectiveness of screening independent of breast density.

© RSNA, 2002

References

  • 1 Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the health insurance plan project and its sequelae, 1963–1986 Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988; 297:943-948.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985; 1:829-832.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet 1990; 335:241-246.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chamberlain J, Coleman D, Ellman R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of screening in the UK trial of early detection of breast cancer. In: Miller AB, Jr, Chamberlain J, Day NE, et al., eds. Cancer screening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991; 3-17.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, et al. Randomized study of mammography screening: preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1991; 18:49-56.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study. I. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 1992; 147:1459-1476.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study. II. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992; 147:1477-1488.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Peeters PHM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, van Bon MJH. Screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen: report of 6 screening rounds, 1975–1986. Int J Cancer 1989; 43:226-230.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AY. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women (serial online). Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993; Feb 25:. Doc No 32.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer B, Shapiro S. Report of the international workshop on screening for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1644-1656.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 1995; 75:2507-2517.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE. The Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989; 43:107-114.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Control Trial—Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:27-30.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alexander FE. The Edinburgh randomized trial of breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:31-35.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273:149-154.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Holland R, Hendriks JH, Mravunac M. Mammographically occult breast cancer: a pathologic and radiologic study. Cancer 1983; 52:1810-1819.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:613-617.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, Hanna W, Allan S, Boyd NF. Case control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84:781-785.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Feig SA, Shaber GS, Patchefsky A, et al. Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977; 128:403-408.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33-38.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998; 209:511-518.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1081-1087.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Feig SA, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrik RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:29-33.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Eastman P. NCI adopts new mammography screening guidelines for women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89:538-540.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47:150-153.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Baines CJ, Miller AB, Bassett AA. Physical examination: its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1989; 63:1816-1822.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bobo JK, Lee NC, Thames SF. Findings from 752,081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:971-976.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US—diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207:191-199.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 41st World Medical Assembly. Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 1990; 24:606-609.
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Beahrs OH, et al. eds. Manual for staging of cancer 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1988.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gas A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:187-210.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Brekelmans CT, Collette HJ, Collette C, Fraschboud J, de Waard F. Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM Screening Programme. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A:893-895.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, et al. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:743-749.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Gad A. Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality and histology. J Med Screen 1995; 2:94-98.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159:287-294.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 DeGroote R, Rush BF, Jr, Milazzo J, Warden MJ, Rocko JM. Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias. Surgery 1983; 94:543-547.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Scroen AA, Wobbes T, van der Sluis RF. Interval carcinomas of the breast: a group with intermediate outcome. J Surg Oncol 1996; 63:141-144.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Senie RT, Lesser M, Kinne DW, Rosen PP. Method of tumor detection influences disease free survival of women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 1994; 73:1666-1672.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Frisell J, von Rosen A, Wiege M, Nilsson B, Goldman S. Interval cancer and survival in a randomized breast cancer screening trial in Stockholm. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992; 24:11-16.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Holmberg LH, Tabar L, Adami HO, Bergstrom R. Survival in breast cancer diagnosed between mammographic screening examinations. Lancet 1986; 2:27-30.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vitak B. Invasive interval cancers in the Ostergotland Mammographic Screening Programme: radiological analysis. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:639-646.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Berkelmans CT, Peeters DeGroote R, Rush BF, Jr, Milazzo J, Warden MJ, Rocko JM. Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias. Surgery 1983; 94:543-547.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:2020-2028.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kopans DB. Breast-cancer screening with ultrasonography. Lancet 1999; 354:2096-2097.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Jacob D, Brombart JC, Muller C, Lefebvre C, Massa F, Depoerck A. Analyse des resultants de l’exerese chirurgicale de 137 lesions mammaires infracliniques: contribution de l’echographie dans le diagnostic precoce du cancer du sein. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1997; 26:27-31.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:921-927.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221:641-649.
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998; 208:717-723.
    Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Oct 2002